Is Exeter sending mixed messages?

In the last year or two we have heard the call for more commercial development in Exeter. To that end, the town re-established the Economic Development Commission and included money in this year's budget for an economic development administrator, one of whose challenges is to encourage more commercial development. Indeed, enc...

Comment

seacoastonline.com

Writer

Posted Jun. 13, 2014 at 2:00 AM

Posted Jun. 13, 2014 at 2:00 AM

» Social News

To the Editor:

In the last year or two we have heard the call for more commercial development in Exeter. To that end, the town re-established the Economic Development Commission and included money in this year's budget for an economic development administrator, one of whose challenges is to encourage more commercial development. Indeed, encouraging commercial development was a common topic of the candidates for the selectboard during the last election and at the two "all-boards" meetings.

However, watching the Planning Board meeting of Thursday, June 5 one might get the opposite impression. The main agenda was hearing of two proposals for residential development, neither with any commercial development. In fact one, the proposal by Wakefield Investments is for over 35 housing units (more than permitted by the regulations) in the site where the old cement factory is located on the Exeter-Hampton Road, an area zoned PP (Professional/Technology Park). In fact, the site has several neighbors (the old court building and the businesses on Holland Way) that are office/professional buildings. Thus, a site that could have potentially been developed as professional/technology is proposed to be residential.

The second presentation that night was by Chinberg Properties for a preliminary proposal to redevelop 27 Chestnut St. The proposal includes two large residential units with 48 units in each. While this is in a R-5 Multifamily district and thus permitted, the ZBA did grant them the ability to extend the buildings to 60 feet in height to permit more units. These will tower over the Jady Hill neighborhood and even over the Mill residences below. Previously, as has also been publicized lately, the development on Franklin Street along the river was permitted to have just residential units in a location that was previously zoned mixed-use, meaning part commercial.

Thus, while the message on the street may be, "Let's encourage commercial growth," the reality is that we seem to be promoting more residential growth, in locations that are zoned for non-residential (commercial, professional/technology). In addition, each of the three developments was granted waivers that permit more residential units than normally allowed. Are we not sending mixed messages to developers when we say we want more commercial development, but come with residential plans and we'll allow them in commercial spaces and also permit more units than zoning normally allows?